Study: Stressed Fish More Likely to Die If You Also Half Cook Them

So they go from water temperatures of 24–30 °C to those “projected for the end of the century [..]33 °C”. (And all while Trenberth is looking for ocean changes of ~0.1 °C or less in a vain attempt to find the missing heat?).
This “study” is actually quite typical of some of the worse papers you see in the biochemical/medical literature: They may get no measureable response to a drug/compound when applied in a reasonable realistic dose (we’re talking cells here, not people). So what do they do? They simply increase the dose way beyond physiologically reasonable or achievable levels until, by golly, they do get a response. It will probably be wholly irrelevant from a scientific standpoint, but they will have got some ‘result’ which they can then publish and pretend is meaningful.

Oh, I almost forgot:

All of my fishing experience is in lakes and inland rivers. Those fish can’t really migrate. On the other hand, most of the fish I ever caught were probably the product of a fish hatchery. So, if the lakes do warm up, we have the infrastructure to change the fish. Could it really be that easy? Probably not.

Where in the world are they expecting water temperatures of 33°C (91°F)? Except in protected shallow bays and lagoons, the temperature drops very quickly when you go down a few meters. As a diver, I’d love to find a reef at even 29°C so I could ditch the wetsuit. So far, no such luck.

I have studied warm water fish for decades, and would need to review some physiology, but I think they do some nit-picking about what causes the problems. The internal particulars seem beside the point along with a too long selective introduction. These papers are so predictable. I guess all the money goes now to studying heat and its bad effects, but their temperatures are hardly very extreme. Real science would study the whole temperature regime, and there seems to be a cold front just past the Bahamas. I may have missed something, but are there proper controls? They note the extensive mortality (amount?) from fishing which I guess is the reason to suggest a phenotypic effect, but there has to be some genetics, among other factors, possible. I just lost access to the paper so I have an excuse to be stupid, but I would not have done it this way. Didn’t they say something about air saturation, presume that means equilibrium, less oxygen with temperature?
On the northern Gulf of Mexico coast non-biological mortality in fishes in general comes mostly from extremes. All these mostly sublethal effects they measured are small relative to cold and predation, human and otherwise. A few shallow water fishes here do have problems when caught in shallow waters with temperatures above 35C. Severe killing freezes have become more rare, none since 1989. I have a photo of a max/min thermometer in December 1983 showing 10C, lots of ice and dead fish around. In 1899 blocks of ice passed New Orleans into the Gulf two days later. Wouldn’t increasing temperatures extend the range of coral and coral critters?
It is interesting that the Ethics Committee allowed harassment instead of more standard respiratory systems to measure stress. They do offer a comment section, but I doubt if it would be useful because this more a generic problem.

Ah yes, another imaginary “What if” that people actually got paid for.
Research allegedly discovered:

“Using adult coral grouper (Plectropomus leopardus), an important fisheries species throughout the Indo-Pacific, we show that population-level survival following vigorous exercise is increasingly compromised as temperatures increase from current-day levels (100–67% survival at 24–30 °C) to those projected for the end of the century (42% survival at 33 °C)”

There you go. Ocean waters are going to warm at least 3°C. And NOAA’s stunning joules paper equates to what something like 0.0165°C per decade or so?
From “SCRFA – an international science & conservation NGO”

“The coral trout, otherwise known as the leopard coral grouper, is distributed across the western Pacific from southern Japan to southern Queensland, west to Lombok, Indonesia and Western Australia, and east to Caroline Islands and Fiji; occurring at depths of 3 to 100m. It is listed as near threatened in the IUCN red list (Assessed in 2004). Plectropomus leopardus is a medium-sized diurnally active grouper easily observed underwater”

Not only the top layer of water is going to warm 3°C, but the oceans will do so to a depth of 100 meters?
Imaginary science.
Imaginary problem.
Assumptions regarding temperature.
Assumptions regarding fish.
Assumptions regarding fisherpeople.
Magical warming of surface waters.
Groupers tend to live in, near and around structure, often reefs.
Commercial fisherpeople are unable to trawl grouper up easily. Reefs are unfriendly to most commercial gear.
Existing populations of groupers easily locate to deeper structure when dealing with water quality and temperature changes.
e.g. in the Gulf of Mexico, when seriously cold weather fronts swing through and radically change temperatures colder; most of the filled killed by low temperatures are warm water fish caught in the bayou shallows.
The same fish species in deeper waters are able to locate preferred water temperatures.
Fish counting science is still archaic at best. With groupers, trawling the fish for a count survey just doesn’t work. Groupers’ spawn over the reefs so the fish can’t be counted easily then and completely opposite to what researchers claim, groupers are not easy to sight or count.